2002 (1) TMI 668

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. -  These two appeals, one by the department and the other by the assessee, are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune. The department's appeal is against the finding in that order that parts of the irrigation system that the respondent manufactured are correctly classifiable in Heading 84.24. This at the relevant ti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion to the irrigation zone and thereafter into the drippers) would be classifiable under Heading 84.24 and would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in Notification 36/96. This has been followed in the decision of the Tribunal in Hallmark Industries v. CCE - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 540; Flow Tech Power v. CCE [2001 (130) E.L.T. 541 (T) = 2001 (42) RLT 220 and EPC Irrigation Ltd. & Anr. v. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal questions both the classification of pipes and tubes and the other parts determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). We are unable to see why the department has come up in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the pipes under Heading 39.17. He has, in his order, confirmed the classification under this treading of these pipes arrived at by the Assistant Collector w....